OSNews: http://www.osnews.com/story/23710/Google_Chrome_Web_Store_Coming_in_October
Exploring the Future of Computingen-usCopyright 2001-2015, David Adamsadam+nospam@osnews.comTue, 31 Mar 2015 21:25:07 GMThttp://www.osnews.com/images/osnews.gifOSNews.comhttp://www.osnews.com
Comment by Krochttp://www.osnews.com/thread?437639
http://www.osnews.com/thread?437639Bad News: Promotes âRequires WebKitâ group-think. Yet more centralisation. I like what this does for promoting web apps as equal, but I donât like how rapidly detached we are getting from the freedoms of the web.Fri, 20 Aug 2010 21:02:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Kroc)CommentsRE: Comment by Krochttp://www.osnews.com/thread?437652
http://www.osnews.com/thread?437652I really doubt that. You can use whatever technologies you want for the webstore. I think you can use Flash, Java or all the complete standard browser technologies for apps, if you want them to also work on other browsers.

I personally don't see the problem in everything using Webkit. I mean it's open source after all, plus all of it's specific implementations are documented. If someone came out with a better rendering engine down the line it wouldn't be impossible to implement backwards compatibility in order to shift support over to it.

It just make things a little easier for developers to make a browser if everyones working on the same backend. The way I see it there's little difference than there being one main Perl, Python, Ruby or Java implementation.Sat, 21 Aug 2010 00:17:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (RichterKuato)CommentsAndroid is the futurehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?437653
http://www.osnews.com/thread?437653Google needs to can ChromeOS and focus exclusively on Android. Granted ChromeOS is a neat idea but honestly who would buy a ChromeOS tablet over an Android one?Sat, 21 Aug 2010 00:19:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (jrash)CommentsRE: Android is the futurehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?437654
http://www.osnews.com/thread?437654The successive introduction of Android and the arrival of Google Chrome OS, both open source, client-based operating systems, have created some market confusion, especially with Android's growing success.[43] Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer accused Google of not being able to make up its mind.[44] Google has downplayed this conflict, suggesting that the two operating systems address different markets, mobile and personal computing, which remain distinct despite the growing convergence of the devices. Co-founder Sergey Brin suggested that the two systems "will likely converge over time" --WikipediaSat, 21 Aug 2010 00:23:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Jondice)CommentsRE[2]: Comment by Krochttp://www.osnews.com/thread?437669
http://www.osnews.com/thread?437669I canât believe you could say that. Hasnât history taught us already that having just one rendering engine isnât healthy? WebKit has a lot of flaws that Iâm not happy with and it needs Firefox to keep on its toes.

If there were only WebKit then video on the web would almost certainly be 100% H.264 without options like OGG or WebM. If the web were only WebKit then Apple would hold all the keys to the web. Apple!â"who are afraid of the web replacing their profitable app store.

No sir, I donât like it.Sat, 21 Aug 2010 07:51:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Kroc)CommentsInterestinghttp://www.osnews.com/thread?437680
http://www.osnews.com/thread?437680I wonder if it will support Flash.Sat, 21 Aug 2010 11:24:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Moochman)CommentsRE: Interestinghttp://www.osnews.com/thread?437682
http://www.osnews.com/thread?437682It does, yes. It will also (or is planned to) support NaCl with ANGLEâ"Googleâs long term replacement for Flash gaming.Sat, 21 Aug 2010 12:58:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Kroc)CommentsRE[3]: Comment by Krochttp://www.osnews.com/thread?437693
http://www.osnews.com/thread?437693Um no. History has taught us that a proprietary browser using proprietary technologies and quirky implementations exclusive to one proprietary OS dominating the browser market isn't healthy.

If Trident were an open source project under a copyleft license with the goal of being the most hackable, reusable, embeddable rendering engine out there and with review status regularly granted to rival vendors then the Internet would have an entirely different history.

Also H.264 isn't apart of the Webkit at all. In fact Webkit has no media handling engine what so ever. You basically have to put one in yourself.Sat, 21 Aug 2010 15:57:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (RichterKuato)CommentsAdds in gameshttp://www.osnews.com/thread?437694
http://www.osnews.com/thread?437694Just wondered what a Google Grand Theft Auto type game might look like.
Imagine a Tony Cipriani like character using branded handguns, hotels and getaway cars.. heheheSat, 21 Aug 2010 16:11:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (fran)CommentsRE[4]: Comment by Krochttp://www.osnews.com/thread?437695
http://www.osnews.com/thread?437695Youâre disregarding the influence the owner company can have over something of theirs that is open source.

The only WebKit implementation that supports OGG is OWB on Amiga / MorphOS. Funny that.

OpenSolaris, not so open now, and now theyâve realised that oh-crap, it relies quite a bit on proprietary tech and thatâll have to be rewritten in Illumos.

Looks like a bright future for Java.

Apple decide what gets checked into WebKit, and what gets compiled into the iPhoneâ"nobody else. WebKit hasnât been forked yet, so I donât see anything but Appleâs influence on the direction of WebKit.Sat, 21 Aug 2010 16:23:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Kroc)CommentsRE[4]: Comment by Krochttp://www.osnews.com/thread?437696
http://www.osnews.com/thread?437696Again Webkit doesn't include a media handler. On that end, Chrome/Chromium supports OGG, and WebM (duh), Webkit/GTk+ supports whatever GStreamer supports QtWebkit support what Phonon supports.

The Webkit Project has so far kept their goal of being a general purpose rendering engine. The project so far has code reviewers from Google, Research in Motion, Nokia, Gtk and KDE projects and some obscure companies no one's heard of. Obviously, If they don't like what Apple is doing they can fork.Sat, 21 Aug 2010 17:55:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (RichterKuato)CommentsRE[5]: Comment by Krochttp://www.osnews.com/thread?437702
http://www.osnews.com/thread?437702Yes, youâre right. Brain is not functioning today :SSat, 21 Aug 2010 21:04:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Kroc)CommentsSoftware dictatorshiphttp://www.osnews.com/thread?437779
http://www.osnews.com/thread?437779I find it amazing how people think that forking webkit would be an answer to the major crisis of one single engine, controlled by one big company, governing the web.

It might be useful to recall that a long time ago, IE was a perfectly standard-compliant browser...Edited 2010-08-23 09:19 UTCMon, 23 Aug 2010 09:15:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Neolander)CommentsRE: Software dictatorshiphttp://www.osnews.com/thread?437803
http://www.osnews.com/thread?437803I find it amazing how people keep trying to compare Webkit, an open source rendering engine, to Internet Explorer, a proprietary web browser.

As if we had the option of forking Trident. If we did, I'm sure that some time within those 4 years of abandoned development there would have been a fork. (Not to mention Mac and Linux ports.)

In the end Webkit, like other open source projects, is limited by how much contributers like the direction it's going. I believe this is why the project has been open to people outside of Apple becoming code reviewers.Mon, 23 Aug 2010 16:31:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (RichterKuato)CommentsRE[2]: Software dictatorshiphttp://www.osnews.com/thread?437862
http://www.osnews.com/thread?437862Let's suppose webkit becomes dominant and then Apple suddenly decides to kill the webkit svn server, arguing that it's now fully BSD licensed so they do whatever they want. What can the community do ?

Some say that it may start a fork, organized by a fundamentally disorganized open source community, and backed up by no serious financial power (except maybe Google). This is forgetting something : as soon as Apple become the masters of the web, they will do what they always do. They will introduce more and more proprietary extensions to webkit, while neglecting the web standards.

Options remaining for the fork :

1/Bet on standard support
=========================
Apple now own the web, they are the ones who train the developers, so the fork will be incompatible with most websites, although very standard-compliant. Such browsers never, ever, got popular. This is a dead end.

2/Bet on proprietary tech support
=================================
Since Apple develop the technology, they will always be one generation of proprietary technology ahead. The fork will hence only support outdated websites, without FaceTime video chat and shiny content. Another dead end.

I don't think they could legally change the license on Webkit. Unless maybe if they got rid of enough code to where they could claim it's no longer a derivative of KHTML; in addition to any added LGPL'd code from contributers.

Also, Apple would have to dominate the market with Safari (or iPhone/iPad/iMac) in order to have the kind of power you're talking about. Otherwise that kind of a change would simply push other vendors to jump on another fork without hesitation.

There's no reason to believe that websites would go by the Safari version of Webkit unless Safari had the majority market share.Tue, 24 Aug 2010 00:36:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (RichterKuato)Comments